On the Representation of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy in Interchange Coursebooks

Document Type: Research Paper


1 Associate Professor

2 M.A. in TEFL


This study intends to evaluate Interchange series (2005), which are still fundamental coursebooks in the EFL curriculum settings, in terms of learning objectives in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (2001) to see which levels of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy were more emphasized in these coursebooks. For this purpose, the contents of Interchange textbooks were codified based on a coding scheme designed by the researchers. The coding scheme was based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of learning objectives. The reliability of the coding scheme was also tested through two kinds of reliability analysis, namely, inter-coder and intra-coder reliability. The data were then analyzed and the frequencies and percentages of occurrence of different learning objectives were calculated. The results of the study revealed that Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS), the three low levels in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, were the most prevalent learning levels in these books. Moreover, a significant difference was also found among the coursebooks in their inclusion of different levels of learning objectives. The other result of this study was the total absence of metacognitive knowledge. All in all, it was found that Interchange series cannot make learners critical thinkers. As a final point, some implications for teachers and coursebook/textbook developers are recommended.


Altman, W.S., Ericksen, K., & Pena-Shaff, J. (2006). An inclusive process for departmental textbook selection. Teaching of Psychology, 33(4), 228-231. Available online at: http://proquest.com.

Amerian, M. (1987). A comparative study of the Graded English and the Right Path to English series with regard to content and methodology. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Amin, A. (2004). Learning objectives in university Persian & English general language courses in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Anderson, L. D. Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. U.S.: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbooks: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(2), 1-11.

Anthony, B.A. (2007). Making students' writing bloom: The effect of scaffolding oral inquiry using Bloom's taxonomy on writing in response to reading and reading comprehension of fifth graders. Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University. Available online at ProQuest database.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th Ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Aviles, C. B. (2000). Teaching and testing for critical thinking with Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Retrieved 1/2010 from: http://eric.ed.gov.

Bastick, T. (2002). Gender differences for 6-12th grade students over Bloom’s cognitive domain. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association. Retreived 2/2010 from: http://eric.ed.gov.

Black, S.M.  & Ellis, R.B. (2010). Evaluating the level of critical thinking in introductory investment courses. The Free Library. Retrieved March 2010 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Evaluating the level of critical thinking in introductory investments...-a0241861836

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Bremner, S. (2008). Intertextuality and business communication textbooks: Why students need more textual support. Retrieved from: www.sciencedirect.com/www.elsevier.com/locate/esp.

Brown, J.D.& Rodgers,T.S.(2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Canon, H.M. & Feinstein, A.H. (2005). Bloom beyond Bloom: Using the revised taxonomy to develop experiential learning strategies. Developments in Business Simulations and Experiential Learning, 32,348- 356.

Carrell, D. &Korwitz, J. (1994). Using Concordancing Techniques to Study Gender Stereotyping in ELT Textbooks. In J. Sunderland (Ed.). Exploring Gender: Questions and Implications for English Language Education. (pp. 73-82). Prentice Hall International.

Chan, C.C, Tsui, C.M., & Chan, M.Y.C. (2002). Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on students’ learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511-527.

Child, J.T., Pearson, J.C., & Amundson, N.G. (2007). Technology talk: Public speaking textbooks’ coverage of information retrieval technology systems. Communication Quarterly, 55(3), 267. Available online at: http://proquest.com.

Churches, A. (2007). Bloom's digital taxonomy. Retrieved 3/2010 from: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+and+ICT+tools.

Chyung, S.Y., & Stepich, D. (2003). Applying the “congruence” principle of Bloom’s taxonomy to designing online instruction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(1), 317-330.

Clarke, J. & M. Clarke. (1990). Stereotyping in TESOL materials. In B. Harrison (Ed.). Culture and the language classroom. Hong Kong: Modern English Publications and the British Council.

Crews, C.F. (2010). The effects of using Bloom's Taxonomy to align reading instruction with the Virginia Standards of learning framework for English. Doctoral thesis, Liberty University.

Cross, G., & Wills, K. (2001). Using Bloom to bridge the WAC/WID divide. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov.

Cruz, E. (2003). Bloom's revised taxonomy. In B. Hoffman (Ed.). Encyclopedia of educational technology. Retrieved 9/2007 from: http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/bloomrev/start.htm.

Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. London: Heinemann.

Darali, G. (2007). Pragmatics dimension in Spectrum textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Davatgarzadeh,G.(2007). The representation of social actors in Interchange third edition series: A critical discourse analysis with respect to the socio-semantic features. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials'. ELT Journal, 51(1). 36-42.

Florent, J. & C. Walter. (1989). A better role for women in TEFL. ELT Journal. 43(3). 180-184.

Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised. In M. Orey (Ed.). Emergingperspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 2/2010 from: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/bloom.htm.

Garekwe,M. (2010). Analysis of cognitive levels of examinations questions set in the Bachelor of Nursing Programme at University of KwaZulu-Natal. Master’s thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Gegen, S.E. (2006). The effects of higher-level questioning in a high school mathematics classroom. Master's thesis, Wichita University.

Gordani, Y. (2008). A content analysis of guidance school English textbooks with regard to Bloom's levels of learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Gracia, J., & Armstrong, D. (1979). Textbook evaluation: A simple procedure for identifying treatment of selected groups. Social Studies, 70(1), 32-37.

Granello, D.H. (2000). Encouraging the cognitive development of supervisees: Using Bloom's taxonomy in supervision. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40(1), 31-46.

Granello, D.H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work: Using Bloom’s taxonomy as a pedagogical tool to improve literature reviews. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40(4), 292-307.

Gray, J. (2000). The ELT coursebook as cultural artifact: How teachers censor and adapt. ELT Journal, 54(3), 274-283.

Grosskopf, D. (1981). Textbook evaluation and selection in the curriculum. Nurse Educator, 6(6), 32-35.

Hanna, W. (2007). The new Bloom’s taxonomy: Implications for music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(4), 7-16.

Hawks, K.W. (2010). The effects of implementing Bloom's Taxonomy and utilizing the Virginia Standards of Learning Curriculum Framework to develop mathematics lessons for elementary students. Doctoral thesis, Liberty University.

Haycroft, J. (1998). An introduction To English language teaching. Longman.

Hoeppel, F. (1981). A taxonomy analysis of questions found in aiding skills developmental books used in Maryland Community College. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(12).

Houghton, R.S. (2004). Communities Resolving Our Problems (C.R.O.P.): the basic idea: Bloom's Taxonomy - Overview. Available online at:http://www.ceap.wcu.edu/Houghton/Learner/think/bloomsTaxonomy.html.

Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.

Iraji, A. (2007). Pragmatic features of New Interchanger: How communicative and task-based it is. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Kearsey, J., & Turner, S. (1999). Evaluating textbooks: the role of genre analysis. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(1), 35-43.

Kheibari, S. (1999). Text analysis and evaluation of TEPSOL coursebooks. Unpublished master's thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

Khormaei, A. (2005). Lexis in English textbooks in Iran, analyses of exercises and proposals for consciousness-raising activities. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Kim, D., & Hall, J. K. (2002). The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 86, 332-348.

Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory in to practice, 41(4), 212-264.

Larkin,B.G., & Burton,K.J. (2008). Evaluating a case study using Bloom's taxonomy of education. AORN Journal, 88(3), 390-402.

Lipscomb, J.W. (2001). Is Bloom’s taxonomy better than intuitive judgment for classifying test question? Education, 106(1), 102-107.

Littlejohn, A. (1998). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Materials Development in language teaching (pp: 190-216).Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzban, P. (2005). Evaluation of primary school textbooks content with regard to the views and perspectives in Islamic Republic of Iran cultural developmental programs. Unpublished master’s thesis, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

Morgan, T. (2003). IELTS preparation materials. ELT Journal, 57(1), 66-76.

Mosallanejad, N. (2008). Evaluation of high school English textbooks on the basis of Bloom's taxonomy. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1),193–211.

O'Neill, R. (1982).Why Use Textbooks. ELT Journal. (36) 2, 104-111.

Orlich, C., Harder, R., Callahan, R., Trevisian, M., & Brown, A. (2004). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. (7th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Pickard,M.J. (2007). The new Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview for family and consumer sciences.Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25(1), 45-55.

Plack, M.M., Driscoll, M., Marquez, M., Cuppernull, L., Maring, J., & Greenberg, L. (2007). Assessing reflective writing on a pediatric clerkship by using a modified Bloom’s taxonomy. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 7(4), 285-291. Available online at: www.sciencedirect.com.

Pohl, M. (2000).Learning to think, thinking to learn-models and strategies to develop a classroom culture of thinking. Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Rastegar, Z. (1992). The analysis of dialogue in Iranian guidance and high school texts in terms of their pragmatic functions. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Razmjoo, S.A. (2007). High schools or private institutes textbooks? Which fulfill communicative language teaching principles in the Iranian context? Asian EFL journal, 9(4), 126-140.

Rex, J. (2008, September). End-of-course examination program. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from: http://ed.sc.gov/

Riazi, A. M. (2003). What do textbook evaluation schemes tell us? A study of the textbook evaluation schemes of three decades. In W. A. Renanda. (Ed.). Methodology and materials design in language teaching (pp. 52-68). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Center.

Shahedi, S. (2001). Constructing an analytical framework for the analysis of Persian language texts for foreign learners. Unpublished master's thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.

Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(2), 237-246.

Soozandehfar, S.M.A. (2011). A textbook evaluation of language functions and speech acts in Top Notch series. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Stone, S., & Gambrill, E. (2007). Do school social work textbooks provide a sound guide for education and practice? Children and School, 29(2), 109-119.

Suh, B.K. (1970). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of social studies textbook content. Retrieved 2/2010 from: http://eric.ed.gov.

Sultana, Q. (2001). Scholarly teaching--Application of Bloom's taxonomy in Kentucky's   classrooms. Paper presented at the third annual conference on scholarship and teaching. Available online at: http://eric.ed.gov.

Tomlinson, B. (2001). Materials development. In Carter, R. & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 66-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Usova, G. M. (1997). Effective test item discrimination using Bloom’s taxonomy.Education, 118 (1), 100-118.

Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Zhu.C., & Deed,C. (2009). Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of Bloom's taxonomy as a labeling tool. Internet and Higher Education, 12,165-172.

Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-18.

Wheeler, D. (2007). Using a summative assessment alignment model and the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy to improve curriculum development, instruction and evaluation. Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University. Available online at Proquest database.

Williams, D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37(3), 251-261.

Xu, I.H. (2004). Investigating criteria for assessing ESL textbooks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.  Retrieved 2/2010 from: http://proquest.umi.com

Yakhontova, T. (2001). Textbooks, contexts, and learners. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 397-415. Retrieved 1/2010 from: www.elsevier.com/locate/esp.

Yarmohammadi, L (2002). The evaluation of pre-university textbooks. The Newsletter of the Iranian Academy of Science, 18, 70-87.

ZareAsl, H.R. (2007). A comparative in-depth evaluation of two pre-university English textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

ZareMoayedi,I. (2007). An in-depth evaluation of Interchange series (3rd  Ed.). Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.